The debate "Women still make only .79 cents for every dollar a man make....why do they pay men more ...not fair" was started by
January 3, 2020, 10:41 am.
51 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 56 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
TheExistentialist posted 7 arguments, TRUELOVE posted 6 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Dez000 posted 18 arguments, Sparkytusk posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
TRUELOVE, TheExistentialist, Rosu, rfwthomasson, tyler0300 and 46 visitors agree.
LitleTortilaBoy, Dez000, aspy, courage, pavan, Flore, m_ahmed, Sparkytusk, Revan123, baywebb43, Greetings, Ali, Joelm and 43 visitors disagree.
We were discussing a study that PROVED YOU RIGHT. He was explaining why the study was bad and I was defending the study. Which means I AGREED WITH YOU.
Just keep your conversation SIMPLE. Trying to sound complicated make you appear foolish.
You can say what you want, but it still remains a fact that males get paid more than females for doing the same EXACT job.
I still wouldn't call those unfair wages. The starting wage is always the same for everyone, that means it had to come down to something else like amount of time spent on average working overtime and in a week and pay raises.
""""lack of valid samples to conclude a mean for an entire population""""
You've made this claim again showing you didn't look at what I asked before.
To make it easier for you I found a calculator that you can use to confirm their sample size of just over 4000 is just enough for a 1.5% (or $1150) margin of error on the estimation of the mean with their reported standard deviation. I don't remember all the parameters, but from memory the survey's standard deviation was $37,000 and the population of registered nurses in the USA are 2.8 million.
and i dont mean to dismiss you, just this argument unless you can show me that this feminazi accusation is any form of representative of the broader feminst movement.
much like the alt right used to be fringe and non representative, but is now moving into the mainstream, feminazi feminism is a very small and fringe group. non representative. unless you can show otherwise, using feminazis to discredit broader modern feminism is false scapegoating.
with numerous studies of varying sample sizes collectively all pointing in the same direction sounds pretty substantial. what sampling would you consider acceptable?
"role women usually play in society" would be a historic injustice that should be corrected no? also i dont understand the connection to salary when career is kept the same.
your labeling of feminism as generally man hating shows you use the simplified and generalized right wing media as an information source. im guessing your economically liberal but socially conservative? mixing is allowed.
"a good chunk" of feminists despise "many" feminazis. im not getting any sense of scale here. which one is the majority and how tiny is the minority? im going to dismiss your feminazi as isolated nobodies on unpopular blogs and youtubers. none representative idiots who dont speak for any movement, just themselves. anecdotal examples to diss and dismiss an entire movement. propaganda.
nemoriff you havent responded to me about the dbz vs sm ._.
discrepencies like the below average studies conducted because of the lack of valid samples to conclude a mean for an entire population because its really hard to find exactly something when there arent many samples of the same size ? Some of the stats suggest that some salaried jobs do have pay gaps this is a given. I would expect the data to point to one way when considering what role women usually play in this society which you can look back on all the past posts to see what this is. The question what does this data say to you about women and work?
Yes the data is true because it says .79 cents and it was a study with its records. No one is saying they didnt conduct their study and posted their data. I posted a video in past posts where they broke down all the data with sources in the description about this stat.
The 3rd paragraph is disgusting and irrelevent especially since you paint me as a right wing. YangGang2020. I just get to see the bigger picture of things because i watch many sources on how many people break down sources from both sides.
This thought is brought because femenist movement isnt what it used to be anymore. A good chunk of femenist despise those raging femenazis who ruin their image by fighting for rights for only women instead of equallity for all. Especially since videos of many so called "femenists" getting owned like by ben shapiro and compilations of femenists not doing what there movement is about. You can see why many actual femenists hate the way their movement is going. Those who are conspiring for the downfall of men are the femenazis. If this doent apply to you, than good.
one would certainly expect discrepencies to exist, but would you expect all the discrepencies to point in the same direction? that doesnt sound like just a discrepency.
who is blaming men and individual companies? the 79 cent stat is true but oversimplified and misinformed, regardless all signs point to a potential existence of a wage gap. shouldn't we look further into it?
who wants men to fail? im sure there are isolated individuals who might be angry, that goes for both sides with some men wanting women to fail and "go back to the kitchen." im sure those extreme voices are not something that represents most right wingers? right wing media loves to represent all liberals as a mishmash of all the most extreme positions, turning them into some charicature of a person. and im talking mainstream right wing media, like fox. im afraid many of your views on liberals are shaped by propaganda.
you said *many* feminists conspire for men to fall, can you elaborate on this "many"?
Somewhat with what I agree. There are some degree of pay gap to certain salary or hourly jobs (not everywhere). Even with some stats that with only a few samples, try to connect that there is pay gap which like many people here already said, not the best but all we have to suggest a pay gap. There is bound to be a pay gap in some settings, but that shouldnt be a reason for people to blame the men and companies. You guys all seem to miss the prompt of this debate. It asks about the .79 cent stat (which comes from an hourly study) is "not fair". Thats why I disagree, with this stat for being unfair because there are so many good reasons why this hourly gap exists. That stat does suggest a pay gap, and any study no matter how poorly executed by the way they got sample or by the low number of samples taken does technically suggests pay gaps. But there are many valid reasons why they exist. So are there paygaps at all in all the jobs in the world? Sure, there has to be. Is it fair? Probably yes. Im sure companies and men arent conspiring for the downfall of women the same way as many femenist conspire for the downfall of males.
your talking logical theory, which is good, but secondary to observable reality.
how they end up getting paid less, idk. nobody is accusing individual bosses of sexism or bigotry, its probably just a systemic continuation of the past when paying when less was expected.
whatever the reason, they are objectively paid less. the numbers do not lie. if that discrepancy is due to less hours, seniority, education, experience, or work ethic: perfectly fine. but if its due to half the human populayion simply being inherently worse at negotiating: its noones their fault, but i think the system should adjust to compensate.
do you agree?
that could be a lawsuit, if salaries were open, but nobody knows other salaries, and lawsuits cant be fought on speculation.
Do these studies show the same amount of pay raises and time spent working in the same profession such as overtime and time off? Like straight out of college and first day on the job, are hospitals committed to paying new female nurses $24 an hour and new male nurses above that? If that's the case, that deserves a lawsuit and a government investigation since it's unconstitutional for businesses to do that.
The issue is that there aren't any big sample studies for each profession that look at salary vs hourly. So this was the best data available to support the point.
However, the overall stats from the institute for women's policy research institute that I linked earlier and you chose to ignore shows labor department statistics for individual professions and the wage discrepancies. Across the board for all professions.
Here is the link to that again
While it doesn't show a breakdown of hourly vs salaried, there are various positions that are exclusively salaried such as most management positions, most teaching positions etc... And the wage gap remains.
This, in conjunction with the nurse.com report shows that it's fairly undeniable that a wage gap exists in every profession. I don't know how you can deny that a gender wage gap exists when literally every profession is shown to have higher salaries for males.
Here is the source data from the bureau of labor statistics.
All the bad companies do it? Lol. Getting a true random sample of a human population is impossible if you're not the government. So most researchers don't do it. For example, most respondents to psychological studies are university students, most respondents to marketing surveys are online MTURK workers. It's not just "bad companies" that use volunteer sampling for surveys, it's every company. How else do you suggest they gather this data? Approaching respondents is still not a random sampling method as its really just another volunteer sampling. Your professor must have addressed data collection issues in the real world.
Also, to be clear Im not defending it by saying it's good statistics. I'm only being pragmatic and saying its the most valid data available, and no other data points in the other direction. The burden is on you to show that respondong to a nurse survey correlates with wage in a statistically significant way.
You also seem to be struggling with the idea of having 4000 respondents represent a much larger population. Maybe you should look into statistical power again and how it's used to determine a minimum viable sample size.
if you still believe this data is valid because you want it to be and because all the bad companies do it this way so its ok for this study to be conducted this way and still yield amazing accurate and precise mean of an entire population with only 1%-2% with only one sample, then go argue with your stat teacher about wether or not this study is good enough to report causation of the pay gap with all of this bias because im tired.
that's the thing, they don't even give the number of samples they uses. they knly discuss one. also, for them to not even have not even 2% of the actual population in the sample, isnt good enough to assume the mean of the entire population. the sample is waaayy to small and the way they got the people is like you said not good. just because its "cost efficient" doesnt make it ok. sure it delivers results but i wouldnt go as far as to call it "precise". especially considering all of this. especially how they got people through only emails and their media, the number they got is horrible and the way they got people to take it is horrible.
the number of the survey is pathetic, go back to see what i said. this is like a class with a pop of 100. they want to find the grade average. they take ONE sample by maybe 2 people to take the survey and only by the 1st two who walk in the door because is "cost efficient" and because "all the classrooms do it".Both of them have As. Thats the mean an A. this is the simpiflied version of their study and its not good. the real study will have even more problems.
there are many factors that can undermine this whole entire study. however the fact that there are because of the convienent sample they took is the reason why this stat should be undermined and not taken THAT serious. sure, its something, but its nothing. certainly not something for femenists to hang around everyones heads. this IS a step on the right direction.
If you took a first year stats unit you can confirm the 1.5% confidence interval yourself. The study gives you enough information. All you need are the number of samples, the standard deviation, the mean, and a working knowledge of the central limit theorem and the t distribution and how they can be used to find a confidence interval when the population's standard deviation is not known. The calculation is:
t-dist(number of samples (twin tail)) multiplied by the sample's standard deviation divided by sqrt of the number of samples.
Plugging the numbers in for women gives (using 4000 instead of 4125 for tdist)
which is 1.56% of the total wage. If you use a tdist with 4125 samples you would be closer to 1.5%.
So it's really the exact error you'd expect from a study of this size with the standard deviation they report. Although, you are right that this validity assumes they've taken a random sampling of the population when they've clearly used a volunteer sampling method. You're also right that a stratified, clustering, or systematic sampling method would have increased the accuracy of their result. But, convenience and volunteer sampling are what most researchers and marketing departments use because it's so cost effective and still delivers precise and accurate enough results to make informed decisions.
For their weak sampling method to undermine their conclusion there would need to be a correlation between wage and volunteering to do the survey that puts an average volunteer's wage 6.5% below the average nurse's wage. I think that's unlikely.
So this stat was no where near conducted properly and the results cant surely be used for a base for an arguement. the results have way too many lurking variables and bias.
the summary of the article didnt give the necessary information to fully understand the stat, so i had to use the actual source to understand it. luckily for me, ive studied stats last year so i can understand if their way of conducting this was correct and guess what, its not.
in the methodology section, already the method in which they gathered the people for their survey is bad because they did an optional survey on the population. they did a convienent sample error which means that bias is brought. for example, people who could feel strong about something will be more likely to participate in a survey than those who dont care or are in the middle ( the section of the population that is the most important to gather in order to eleminate bias) often times those people who do participate in a convienent survey are the extemists. In summary, bias is already present in the foundation of the "experiment" which is really really bad.
Also, the people were gathered/ informed only on social media from emails and nurse.com media which restricts the sample even more and making the surveys even more bias than they are. They are not reaching people in other ways at all. they arent calling people, they arent conducting a simple random sample. they arent doing a stratified sample or cluster sample. some quick research on that and you will realize how horrible this is that they arent doing this.
This horrible way of gathering people from the population can be seen in the pathetic number of male and female ratio they "experimented on". theres no way with this ratio you can ever conclude anything reasonable.
They at least tried to get the percentage of different states accounted for the survey, but from the actual population, the sample of 4520 does not nowhere near represent a minimum of 10%. There is absolutley no way in hell that with this they can ever come close to get an accurate mean on the salary.... 10% of " california's 330,000 isnt even close to 4520 let alone the ENTIRE population of nurses. Exactly how they were able to split all 50 states in the 4520 is not clear...
For the 1.5 sample error is twisted to match only this one sample/ survey. There is no way they can say this by not conducting it properly or having at least 10 percent of the population to get close to the actual mean of the entire population. In fact, a 1.5 percent sampling error is really really high for not even 2 percent of the actual population. This stat cant be used...
Another research study that shows a pay difference in public k-12 teachers in PA (salaried positions)
Again, the hourly thing isn't an issue since we're talking about salaried positions.
This is a summary of the report. Unfortunately you probably don't have access to the original report since it's locked behind the sign up wall unless you have wanna go through and just signing up with a fake email address
The survey was conducted by nurse.com, a credentialed organization that offers online continuing education credits for RN license renewals.
Here are some of the detail
Survey used Approximately 4,520 nurses.
The overall sample is representative of each state’s percentage of RNs when compared to the U.S. workforce.
The sampling error is 1.5% with a 95% confidence interval.
It was RECENTLY on the NEWS that for every dollar that a man makes a woman makes $0.79 and black women make less than white women doing the exact same type of work. That was recently reported on the news. Where do you live under a rock? Do you even look at the news?
I said they are doing the SAME EXACT WORK. Which part of that don't you understand?
Look it up like I did. I put the work in, now you put the work in. Its called RESEARCH. Men today are still making more money than women for doing the same EXACT work.
this explains more about how the stat about the 79 cents thing is only from only hourly pay. I would like you to send me the website where it talkes about the pay gap in salaried positions. even though the title of the debate is only about the .79 cents stat and if its fair or not, i still want to get what website where you got all that information on the CNOs getting a salaried paygap. i want to see what factors they considered and where they got the sample. if they conviently leave all of that, that would be funny.
my claim still makes sense. society values more an electrician than a teacher and this can be seen by the pay difference from these jobs. also, the amount of work and force is also considered by the pay. an electricina has to go through rigorous training and deal with a chance of death if they mess up with the wires while a teacher stays home planning for a next lesson.electricians has to travel to many homes and companies to do their complicated work while a teacher usually travels to a classroom and sits. so yes, even though to become an electrician takes almost the same as a teacher, the work is waaaayy harder and because of that, they are paid more. this concept of working harder and doing more work was in my past arguements. these and along with years spent on a degree ( or trait: the concept stays the same) again, you conviently ignored all the info and cherrypicked to your liking....
so is the famous statistic that everyone arguea only about salaried positions. does the stat mention that the samples inly come from salaried positions. can you link the website from where got this info.
i want to answer your questions but i dont understand some of the points your saying. i dont know that much english so can you explain more in detail why the "previous salary" question is blamed by wage gap activists." what does this mean?.what previous question is being blamed on. are they being blamed or are they doing the balming.
Also can you explain more in detail what "system" is creating the discrepencies. and can you explain how its doing so. and what specific discrepencie(s). how many is that system making.
i just want to clarify some things.
My 2 cents in this debate is women tend to get more value from social rewards than men. That's why altruistic professions, like nursing or teaching, are female dominated, whereas professions with more financial incentives for developing technical expertise, like STEM or executive roles, are male dominated. I'm not saying all, just not a statistically insignificant amount that I believe explains much of the pay disparity.
A disposition towards altruism means you're willing to accept social rewards as a larger part of the pay package. There will always be those who will work for less in altruistic professions because it's more fulfilling. Men tend to be less altruistic so their incentives need to be more financially based to attract then to those professions, thus they are even paid more in those altruistic professions. It's not just a phenomena that affects pay disparity between industries, but also within them.
Also, since nursing and teaching are unscalable B2C industries who are seen as a human right to their customers, they struggle to charge a premium for their services. Something which I've noticed is the opposite in tech because clients rarely have any clue what the actual work you need to do is so it's easier to charge a premium. That is likely to explain the disparity in total value harvested by the workers even though the value created is arguably more similar.
Does this explain the entire difference? No, but I think it explains most if it. From what I've heard, not sure how credible this is though, accounting for everything but discrimination and bias brings the disparity down to 5%
"its not the male dominated part but rather how much more and higher colleged degree a student gets."
in most states a teacher requires a masters degree, if not right away, within a few years of starting. an electrician is simply a trade certification one can get in less then 2 years. your argument contradicts itself.
considering how even this nation viewed women only a few decades ago, why are you pretending it is impossible for their careers to be demeaned? teachers guide our future, nurses save lives. how will you argue electricians or accountants are more valuable?
"your arguemnt is flawed and your data isnt considering the hours at all. you do realize what how an average works right. answer what the factors and conditions are ( im pretty sure that women arent working as many hours as males because a factor like a taking care of a child) that affect this statistic."
Again; the numbers stay the same in SALARIED positions. This means hours worked, OT, none of that matters.
Among the notable findings regarding average annual earnings:
Men who were chief nursing officers earned an average salary of $132,700.
Women CNOs had an average salary of $127, 047.
Male staff nurses earned $75,833.
Female staff nurses earned $68,521.
Male nurses earned $79,688.
Female nurses earned $73,090
If your argument were accurate, we'd expect the pay gap to be largest in the hourly rate and smallest in the salaried positions. However, the avg. hourly gap is $6,598 while the avg salaried gap is $7,312.
This works out to women earning 8.3% less than males when we look at hourly rates and 9.7% less when using salaries. So the exact opposite of what your argument preports is actually the case.
companies primary concern is filling a vacant position. vancant positions = loss of revenue far more then a fractions of a salary. their goal is to find a quality candidate of any sex asap. once that candidate is in the room, obviously they would prefer to minimize their cost. this is why the "previous salary" question is blamed by wage gap activists.
no one is claiming individual employers are scheming to pay women less, its the systems in place that create the discrepencies.
also dont gloss over the question about why companies wont only hire females because if they are getting paid less for EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY the same job, why wont companies only hire women since its cheaper???
your arguemnt is flawed and your data isnt considering the hours at all. you do realize what how an average works right. answer what the factors and conditions are ( im pretty sure that women arent working as many hours as males because a factor like a taking care of a child) that affect this statistic. your also cherry picking and just using the statistic for your argumet without understanding that the foundation and factors of how the study came to be supports mine. im looking at the whole process of the stat and your just looking at the tip of thr ice berg convienintly...
"im sorry, but i don't see how accounting (male dominated) provides more value, or requires more education then teachers (female dominated)"
male dominated means a job title where men mostly make the population. its not the "male dominated" label that adds more value but rather how much more and higher the college degree a student gets which provides that value. it just turns out that these degrees are mostly accomplished by men. a teacher degree doesnt take that much work and education to earn and anyone can easlily become a teacher. also the fact that teachers get paid less proves how much less they are valued than an electrician. teachers are mostly females which means that is "female dominated". it just so happends that that job is less valued. this is a simple concept im surprised your not concerned in accounting all of this. its almost like your cherry picking because you dont understand this
you do realize your whole arguement doesnt make sense. if women get paid less for the same exact job and same exact hours and same exact position, than companies will only hire females and not males.answer that first. also, is the statostic an average and tell me what the average is from and what factors like hours, positon, and type of job they do.
"thats exactly what im saying: male dominated industries are male dominated because they work hard to get that high paying jobs."
And if you'd have read the other articles you'd have seen that even within the same industry males make more than females. In nursing for example, men make more both on an per hour scale and on salary scales. This directly contradicts the argument that the paygap is only due to types of jobs.
In teaching you can again see that females make less than their male counterparts (this is by salary).
In hospitality, again, males make more than females.
Note that these are female dominated industries and yet, males make more. This means that your argument about the different types of jobs is totally irrelvant since we're actually looking at the same jobs. The only difference is sex.
im sorry, but i don't see how accounting (male dominated) provides more value, or requires more education then teachers (female dominated)
even in fields where women require more education and investment, they are paid less. and in female dominated jobs, like nursing, male nurses still make more.
the wage gap was not debunked, rather it became nuanced. most low wage workers had no wage gap, minimum wage gets minimum wage. however when you go to executive positions, you find women who may have completely forfeited their sexual market value in order to focus whole heartedly on her career... and that is where you also find the biggest wage gap. at the top.
this is from the first article you linked
"Male-dominated industries tend to have higher wages than industries and occupations made up mostly of female workers;"
thats exactly what im saying: male dominated industries are male dominated because they work hard to get that high paying jobs. they have higher wages because they deserve it. women would also have that if they wanted to spend many more years on a high paying degree. but many women dont want to because with the passing of time, their sexual market worth decreasses which is another can of worms that i do not want to open. do your own research on the decrease of female value on the sexual market.
yes the wage gap exists, but it it entirely fair. on average, most women go for jobs that usually dont pay as much as males. while most women will work as a nurse, most males would will work as doctors, a job that pays more. also, because society does not put a worth to mothers in terms of salary, most mothers which makes a huge chunk of any population, dont get paid at all. these conditions all impact the fact that males have a higher wage on average compared to women. this is fair considering how much work a person puts in having a high paying job. think about it, how many teachers, nurses, babysitters, and stay at home parrent are females. how many doctors, engineers, electrician, construction, entrepenuer, surgeon, real estate agent, and buisness owners are males? which parrent stayed home to take care of you, a good chunk would say their mom. again, the wage gap does exist but it is fair and nothing to be used agasint males who work hard for a high paying job to provide for their family.
Just because people refute it doesn't make them right. The empirical data shows that there is a pay gap regardless of what you want to believe. Can you please link the data that shows the refutation you're talking about?
here are a few stats:
This is broken down by industry and job market, so the excuse of men taking on higher risk jobs with higher pay is eliminated as it's apples to apples jobs.
Pew research finds that the pay gap has lessened, but is still prevalent
Pay gap is even an issue in female dominated industries as shown here:
this claim has been refuted soo many times. women and men get paid the same. think about it, if this was true, companies would only hire female because they would get to pay less and males would have a harder time looking for a job. this claim that females get paid less is so stupid.
So you agree. Men are PAID more. I did the RESEARCH.
This is false. If we look at women dominated industries like Nursing, Teaching, etc... the same pay gap is present. Even if you look at salaried employees in those same industries, women tend to earn less than their male counterparts.
The only increase risk in terms of lawsuits is due to the discrimination the women face in the workforce. If they weren't discriminated against in the first place, there would be no difference in the number of lawsuits.
Because men have a higher potential for work. They need less medical time off. They are low risk for lawsuits. They l have a wider range of work areas open to them.
Also, Women can get paid just as much as a man, but due to the fact that there are less of them in the workforce as it is, the data is skewed.